Holding

The Court held that equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal and directed the regularisation of casual/daily‑rated employees with a specific scheme, treating them as monthly‑rated employees and providing phased regularisation.

Summary

The petitioners, comprising trade unions, a law‑students' society and two individuals, sought quashing of the Karnataka Government's 12‑March‑1982 notification and directions to regularise about 50,000 daily‑rated and monthly‑rated employees as regular government servants with equal pay. They argued that the employees, many with 15‑20 years of continuous service, were denied equal pay for equal work, violating Directive Principles and Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional goal of equal pay for equal work and the need to regularise long‑standing casual employment, citing numerous precedents. It held that the principle is not abstract but enforceable, and directed the State to implement a scheme treating casual/daily‑rated workers appointed before 1‑July‑1984 as monthly‑rated employees with a fixed pay of Rs. 780 and phased regularisation. The Court also ordered immediate regularisation of 18,600 workers with ten years of service and a further phased absorption up to 1997, while recognising the State’s fiscal constraints. The petitions were allowed and the scheme was given its final shape.

Issues considered

Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to daily‑rated and monthly‑rated employees in the Karnataka public works department.
Whether the State is obligated to regularise casual/daily‑rated employees as regular government servants.
Whether the employees are entitled to arrears of salary and benefits for the period prior to regularisation.
How the scheme for regularisation should be structured given the State’s financial constraints.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 141, s. Article 16, s. Article 37, s. Article 38, s. Article 39(d)
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

Subjects

equal pay for equal workregularisation of casual employeesdirective principlesconstitutional lawArticle 32public sector employmentwage discrimination

Judgment

A
THE DHARWAD DISTT. P.W.D. LITERATE DAILY y
!WAGES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS. ETC. •
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC ..

FEBRUARY 23, 1990
B
[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND
S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.]

Karnataka State-Daily rated and monthly rated employees-
Treatment as regular government servants-Directions by Court.
c These are Writ Petitions nnder Article 32 of the Constitution of
India and a Special Leave Petition against the Judgment of the
Karnataka High Court filed by two trade unions and a Society formed
by law students of the University College and two individuals asking for
quashing the Karnataka Government's Notification dated llth March,
D 1982 and for directions to confirm the daily rated and monthly rated
employees as regular government servants and for payment of normal
salary and service benefits as applicable to the appropriate categories of
the government servants.

Nearly 50,000 such persons are employed in different Govern-
E ment establishments though many of them have put in 15 to 20 years of
continuous service. They have not been regularised in their service and
are not being paid equal pay for equal work as has been mandated by
this Court by way of implementation of the Directive Principles of State
Policy.

F Pursuant to the directions of th's Court, the State of Karnataka
filed a draft Scheme. The Court considering both the aspects of 'equal
pay for equal work' and continuing casual employment for too long
re-affirmed the view that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is
not an abstract doctrine instead it is vital and vigorous doctrine
accepted throughout the world. While accepting the petitions, the
G Court,

HELD: That 'equal pay for equal work' and providing security
for service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable
period have been unanimously accepted by this Court as a constitu-
tional goal of our socialist polity. While giving directions to the State for
H giving final shape to the Scheme, the Court further held that under the

544
P.W.D. EMP. ASSCN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 545

J scheme of the Constitution the pnrse remains in the hands of the Execu-
A
tive. The Legislature of the State controls the consolidated Fund out of
which the expenditure to be incurred, in giving effect to the scheme will
have to be met. ]553F; 559H; 560A]
The now into the Consolidated Fund depends upon the policy of
taxation depending perhaps on the capacity of the payer. Therefore
undnly burdening the State for implementing the constitutional obliga-
B
tion would create problems which the State may not be able to stand.
Directions have therefore been made with judicious restraint with the
hope and trust that both parties would appreciate and understand the
situation. The instrumentality of the State must realise that it is charged
with a big trust. [5608-C]
The casual/daily rated employees appointed on or before 1. 7.1984 c
shall be treated as monthly rated establishment employees at the
fixed pay of Rs. 780 p.m. without any allowances with effect from
J. J.1990. [558H]
The scheme which has been finalised is not the ideal one. It is the
obligation of the Court to individualise justice to suit a given situation in D
a set of facts that are placed befor.e it. [559H]
Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] l SCC 618;
Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U.P., [1986] l SCC 637; Surin-
der Singh & Anr. v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P. W.D. & Ors., [1986] l
SCC 639; Kishori Mohan/al Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC E
1139; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165; R. C. Gupta &
Ors. v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. & Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 505;
Bhagwan Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1987] l SCC 634;
Jaipal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 354; Daily
Rated Casual Labour employed under P & T Department Contingent
Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] Suppl. p,
SCC 658; State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., [1989] I SCC
121; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kera/a, [1973] 4 SCC 225 and
Bh_agwan Sahai Carpenter & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., [1989] 1
JT. 545, referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 8307-11 of
1983 etc.
G

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia) "

WITH
H
Special Leave Petition No. 6823 of 1988.
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.1988 of the Karnataka
High Court in Application No. 3392 of 1987. -

N .S. Hegde, Additional Solicitor General, R.K. Garg, M.C.
Bhandare, Mrs. Indra Jaisingh, P.S. Poli (NP), Govind Mukhoty, TS.
Krishnamurthy _Iyer (NP), Miss Rani Jethmalani, R.M. Tiwari,
L.P. Gour, Mohan Katarki, D.K. Garg, V. Laxmi Narayan, P.R.
Ramasheesh, M. Veerappa (NP), S. Ravindra Bhatt and C.S. Vai-
dyanathan for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RANGANATH MISRA, J. These are five writ petitions under
.cArticle 32 of the Constitution by two trade unions, a society formed by
Law students of the University College and two individuals asking for
quashing of the Karnataka Government's Notification of 12th March,
1982, and for directions to confirm the daily rated and monthly rated
employees as regular government servants and for payment of normal
D salary at the rates prescribed for the appropriate categories of the
Government servants and other service benefits. It has been pleaded
that about 50,000 such workers are employed in the different Govern-
ment establishments and though many of them have put in 15 to 20
years of continuous service-which is proof of the fact that there is
permanent need for the jobs they perform-they have not been
E regularised in their service and are not being paid equal pay for equal
work as has been mandated by this Court by way of implementation of
the Directive Principles of State Policy. J
<

A two Judge Bench of this Court dealing with these writ petitions
on 14th July, 1988, directed:
y
F
"We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, only
on one of the questions involved in this case viz. whether
the monthly rated Gangmen who are referred to in Para-
graph I of the Government's order No. PWD 100 PWC 83,
Bangalore dated 12th January, 1984 and the monthly rated
G Sowdies etc. referred to in the Government's order No.
PWD 120 PWC 84 dated 4th December, 1984 should be
paid ;the same salary as the salary paid to Gangmen and
Sowdies respctively who are employed regularly by the
State Government. As we are of the view that the principle
enunciated by this Court in Paragraph 3 of the judgment of
this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under
P.W.D. EMP. ASSCN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [MISRA, J.] 547

--y--
., P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor
A
Manch v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 1SCC122 is ap-
plicable to this case also, we direct the Government of
Karnataka to pay salary to such workmen at the rates equi-
valent to the minimum pay in the pay-scales of the regu-
larly employed Gangmen or Sowdies, as the case may be,
but without any increment with effect from 1.7.1988. The
~ B
question whether they are entitled to any arrears for the
period between the date on which their services were
regularised under the State Government's Orders and
1. 7. 1988 will be considered along with the other questions
:0
involved in this case at the final hearing. This case shall
stand adjourned by three months. In the meanwhile we
·permit the State Government to frame a more rational c
scheme for absorbing as many casual workers and monthly
~- rated Gangmen and Sowdies as possible in regular cadres.
The case need not be treated as part-heard."

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the State of Karnataka has D
filed a draft scheme, copies of which have been served on the parties,
their response to the draft scheme has been received and the matter
---( has been heard at length.

A three-Judge Bench in Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,
[1982] ISCC618observed: , E.

~ "It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is
not expressly decalred by our Constitution to be a funda-
mental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Arti-
--{ cle 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal
work for both men and women' as a Directive Principle of F
State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and
women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and
as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been
pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to
be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpre-
tation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not G
to deny any person equality before the law or the equal
"""- protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there
shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters
relating to employment or appointment to any office under
the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must
mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean
A nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and
the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have
some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether
the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying
alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing
B with tax evaders is discriminatory; whether a particular
governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or
permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive,
whether the take-over of the empires of industrial tycoons
is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like
nature, leave the millions to people of this country
untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like,
c mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to
them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the
Constitution have any significance to them ..... Constru-
ing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the light of the
Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the
D principle 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those
Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal
scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classifi-
cation though those drawing the different scales of pay do
identical work under the same employer."

E,. That was the case of Delhi Police drivers. In the case of
Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U.P., [1986] 1 SCC 637, the
claim for equal pay for equal work arose for consideration on the
complaint of persons who were engaged by the Nehru Yuvak Kendra
as casual workers on daily wage basis. While dealing with the problem
a two-Judge Bench took note of the fact that casual employment was y
F being continued for too long a period and directed:

"the Central Government to accord to these persons who
are employed by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras and who are
concededly performing the same duties as Class IV
employees, the same salary and conditions of service as are
G being received by Class IV employees, except regularisa-
tion which cannot be done since there are no sanctioned
posts. But we hope and trust that posts will be sanctioned
by the Central Government in the different Nehru Yuvak
Kendras, so that these persons can be regularised. It is not
at all desirable that any management and particularly the
H Central Government should continue to employ persons on
P.W.D. EMP. ASSCN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [MISRA, J.] 549

casual basis in organisations which have been in existence
A
for over 12 years."

Both these aspects, namely, 'equal pay for equal work' and con-
tinuing casual employment for too long came for consideration of
another two-Judges Bench of this Court in Surinder Singh & Anr. v.
·~. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P. W.D. & Ors., [1986) 1 SCC 639. Chinnappa B
Reddy, J. speaking for the Court began his judgment by saying:

- "In these two writ petitions, the petitioners who are
employed by the Central Public Works Department on a
daily wage basis and who have been so working for several
years, demand that they should be paid the same wages as
permanent employees employed to do identical work. They
c
state that even if it is not possible to employ them on regu-
lar and permanent basis for want of a suitable number of
posts, there is no reason whatsoever why they should be
denied 'equal pay for equal work'.
D
Continuing to deal with the matter the learned Judge pointed
out:
. --{
"One would have thought that the judgment in the Nehru
Yuvak Kendras case concluded further argument on the
question. However, Shri V.C. Mahajan, learned counsel E
for the Central Government reiterated the same argument
and also contended that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal
work' was a mere abstract doctrine and that it was not
capable of being enforced in a court of law. He referred us
-y to the observations of this Court in Kishori Mohan/al
Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139. We are not a f
little surprised that such an argument should be advanced
on behalf of the Central Government 36 years after the
passing of the Constitution and 11 years after the Forty-
second Amendment proclaiming India as a socialist
republic. The Central Government like all organs of the
State. is committed to the Directive Principles of State G
Policy and Article 39 enshrines the principle of equal pay
for equal work. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India, supra,
this Court has occasion to explain the observations in
Kishori Mohan/al Bakshi v. Union of India, and to point
out how the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an
abstract doctrine and how it is a vital and vigorous doctrine H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.<;.R.

A
accepted 'throughout the world, particularly by alllsocialist y
countries. For the benefit of those who do not seem. to be
aware of it, we may point out that the decision in Randhir
Singh, case has been followed in any number of cases by
th.is Court and has been affirmed by a Constitution Bench
of this Court in D.s: Nakara v. Union of India, [1983] 2
SCR 165. The Central Government, the State Govern-
ments and likewise, all public sector undertakings are
expected to function like model and enlightened employers

-
and arguments such as those which were advanced before
us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an
abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of
law should ill come from the mouths of the State and the
c State Undertakings ..... "

A little later came the case of R.D. Gupta & Ors. v. Lt. Gover-
nor, Delhi Admn. & Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 505 raising the problem of
inequality of pay in a situation where equal work was being rendered .
.D In paragraph 18 of the judgment the ratio of the decision already
referred to was reaffirmed. In the case of Bhagwan Dass & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors., [ 1987] 4 SCC 634, the same principles were
reiterated in the case of Teachers and Supervisors in the education
service. Another Division Bench in Jaipal & Ors. v. State of Haryana
& Ors., [1988] 3 sec 354 was dealing with the disparity in the Condi-
t. tions of service of Instructors under the Adult and Non-formal Educa-
tion Scheme and regular employees of the State ofHaryana. This court
stated:

"There is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers are
employees of the same employer doing work of similar
nature in the same department; therefore, the appointment
on a temporary basis or on regular basis does not affect the
doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Article 39(d) con-
tained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to
direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work
for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in
the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is
fundamental in nature. The purpose of the Article is to fix
certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimi-
nation amongst the people doing similar work in matters
relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work
has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh v.
Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P. and
P.W.D. EMP. ASSCN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [MISRA, J.l 551

Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD. In view of
A
these authorities it is too late in the day to disregard the
doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the
employment being temporary and the other being per-
manent in nature. A temporary or casual employee
performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the
-\... . same pay as paid to a permanent employee." B

In the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P & T
Department v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 122, the twin
aspects for consideration before us had arisen for determination. This
~ Court then indicated:

"It may be true that the petitioners have not been regularly
c
recruited but many of them have been working con-
tinuously for more than a year in the department and some
of them have beeen engaged as casual labourers for nearly
ten years. They are rendering the same kind of service
which is being rendered by the regular employees doing the D
same type of work. Clause (2) of Article 38 of the
Constitution of India which contains one of the Direc-
tive Principles of State Policy provides that 'the State
shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in
income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status,
facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals E
but also amongst groups of people residing in different
areas or engaged in different vocations'. Even though
the above directive principle may not be enforceable
as such by virtue of Article 37 of the Constitution of
India, it may be relied upon by the petitioners to show
that in the instant case they have been subjected to F
hostile discrimination. It is urged that the State cannot
deny at least the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly
employed workmen even though the government may not
be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regu-
larly recruited employees. We are of the view that such
denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The government G
cannot take advantage of its dominant position, and com-
pel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starva-
tion wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to
work on such low wages. That he has done because he has
no other chg ice. It is poverty that has driven him to that
state. The government should be a model employer. We are H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1990] I S.C.R.
of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of this
A
case the classification of employees into regularly recruited
employees and casual employees for the purpose of paying
less than the minimum pay payable to employees in the
corresponding regular cadres particularly in the lowest
rungs of the department where the pay scales are the lowest
B is not tenable ..... India is a socialist republic. It implies
the existence of certain important obligations which the
State has to discharge. The right to work, the right to free
choice of employment, the right to just and favourable con-
ditions of ..york, the right to protection against unemploy-
ment, the right of everyone who works to just and favour-
able remuneration ensuring a decent living for himself and
c his family, the right of everyone without discrimination of
any kind to equal pay for equal work, the right to rest,
leisure, reasonable limitation on working hours and
periodic holidays with pay, the right to form trade unions
and the right to join trade unions of one's choice and the
D right to security of work are some of the rights which have
to be ensured by appropriate legislative and executive mea-
sures. It is true that all these rights cannot be extended
simultaneously. But they do indicate the socialist goal. The \_
degree of achievement in this direction depends upon the
economic resources, willingness of the people to produce
E and more than all the existence of industrial peace through-
out the country. Of those rights the question of security of ::_
work is of utmost importance. If a person does not have the
feeling that he belongs to an organisation engaged in pro-
duction he will not put forward his best effort to produce
more. That sense of belonging arises only when he feels
F that he will not be turned out of employment the next day
at the whim of the management. It is for this reason it is
being repeatedly observed by those who are in charge of
economic affairs of the countries in different parts of the
world that as far as possible security of work should be
assured to the employees so that they may contribute to the
G maximisation of production. It is again for this reason that
managements and the governmental agencies in particular
should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or
temporary employees for an uneasonably long period of
time . ..... "

H Keeping these principles in view this Court in the case of H.P. Income
P.W.D. EMP. ASSCN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA !MISRA, J.I 553

Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union of
A
India & Ors., [1987] Suppl. SCC 6S8 indicated with emphasis:

"We accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the
respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are
employed as the contingent paidstaff of the Income Tax
).
..
Department throughout India, doing the work of Class IV
employees at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in
B

the pay scale of the regularly employed workers in the

-
corresponding cadres ..... "

.J Then came the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia &
Ors., [1989] 1 SCC 121 where a Division Bench of this Court
reiterated: c

"Equal pay for equal work for both men and women has
been accepted as a constitutional goal capable of being
achieved through constitutional remedies."
D
On this occasion the authority of the larger Bench in Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of Kera/a, [ 1973] 4 SCC 225 where the Court said 'the
dominant objective in view was to ameliorate and improve the lot of
the common man and to bring about a socio-economic justice' was
called in aid for the conclusion of the Court.
E
Reference may also be made to another Division Bench judg-
ment of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter & Ors. v.
Union of India & Anr., [ 1989] l JT 545 where the ratio of the decisions
referred to above was given effect to.

We have referred to several precedents-all rendered wi)hin the F
current decade-to emphasise upon the feature that equal pay for
equal work and providing security for service by regularising casual
employment within a reasonable period have been unanimously
accepted by this Court as a constitutional goal to our socialistic polity.
Article 141 of the Constitution provides how the decisions of this
Court are to be treated and we do not think there is any need to G
remind the instrumentalities of the State-be it of the Centre or the
State, or the public sector-that the Constitution-makers wanted them
to be bound by what this Court said by way of interpreting the law.

The question that arises in these matters is indeed not one that
has been left wholly to the realm of interpretation and to be described H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A as Judge-made law. Parliament has stepped in as early as 1976 by ·y
enacting the Equal Remuneration Act (25 of 1976) to take over a part
of the qustion which arises here. That Act is a legislation providing
equality to pay for equal work between men and women which cer-
tainly is a part of the principle which we are considering.

B President Roosevelt, the American Chief Executive, in one of ,J
his annual reports about the state of the Nation to the Congress once
pointed out:

c
''The chief law-makers in our country may be, and often
are, the Judges because they are the final seat of authority.
Every time they interpret contract, property vested rights,
due process of law, liberty, they necessarily enact into law
-
part of a system of social philosophy; and as such interpre- ~-
talion is fundamental, they give direction to all law making.
The decisions of the Courts on economic and social ques-
lions depend upon their economic and social philosophy;
D and for the peaceful progress of our people during the
twentieth century, we shall owe most of those Judges to
hold to a twentieth century economic and social philosophy (

and not to a long overgrown philosophy which was itself a
product of primitive economic conditions." "'·
E We would like to point out that the philosophy of this Court as :_
evolved in the cases we have referred to above is not that of the Court
but is ingrained in the Constitution as one of the basic aspects and if ,......
there was any doubt on this there is no room for tl)at after the Pream-
ble has been amended and the Forty-Second Amendment has declared
the Republic to be a socialistic one. The judgments, therefore, do
·y-
F nothing more than highlight one aspect of the constitutional philo-
sophy and make an attempt to give the philosophy a reality of flesh and
blood.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of this Republic while
dreaming of elevating the lot of the common man of this country once
G stated:
'r
"Our final aim can only be a classless society with equal
economic justice and opportunity to all, a society organised
on a planned basis for the raising of mankind to higher
material and cultural level. Everything that comes in the
H way will have to be removed gently if possible; forcibly if
P.W.D. EMP. ASSCN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA /MISRA, J.) 555
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] I S.C.R.

A The precedents referred to above have, therefore, obliged the y
State of Karnataka, respondent before us, to regularise the services of
the casual employees who are in these cases called daily rated and
monthly rated employees and the State of Karnataka is obliged to
make them the same payment as regular employees are getting.
Mr. Hegde appearing for the State has, however, pointed out that
B
while on principle it is difficult to play a different tune, in reality and as
a matter of state-craft, implementation thereof forthwith is an
economic impossibility. He has, therefore, placed the scheme drawn

•
-
up by the State for our consideration and has pleaded for balancing the
philosophy and the economic constraints of the State for the purpose
of resolution of the dispute.
c
We have already pointed out that there are about 50,000
employees covered by the classifications who await regularisation. On ('
3rd of April, 1986, the question of regularisation of services of persons '
working on daily wages in the local bodies under the administrative
control of the Urban Wing of the Housing and Urban Development
D Department came for consideration on the basis of the report of the
Committee set up on 26. 11.1985. In the meantime, this Court's order
dated 17th of January, 1986 in a group of writ petitions laying down the ,
principle of equal pay for equal work had been pronounced. Keeping ~.
that in view the State Government on 3.4.1986 made the following
order:
E
"Having regard to the recommendations of the Com-
mittee and after duly taking into account the observation ,.-.
made by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above,
Government of Karnataka hereby direct that all the
F
employees working on daily wage basis or NMR basis in Y
the local bodies which come under the administrative con-
trol of Urban Wing of Housing and Urban Development
Department, be granted the same pay and allowances as
are allowed to regular employees of the respective cadres
with effect from L 1.1986, subject to the following
conditions:
G
1. No financial assistance shall be available from r
Government.

2. The additional resources on this account should be
raised by the local bodies concerned; and
H
P.W.D. EMP. ASSCN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [MISRA, J.) 557

3. The local bodies should freeze the recruitment for A
the next 4 to 5 years or alternatively study the workload
and prune the expenditure accordingly.

On 2nd of July, 1986, a set of rules known as the Karnataka State
Civil Services (Special Recruitment of the Candidate) Rules, 1986
came into force. We have been told that ambit of the present dispute B
before us is in no manner affected by the said decision of the Govern-
ment nor the Rules that have been referred to above. We do ·not
propose to examine the correctness of this statement while deaiing
with the scheme of the State Government.

The scheme furnished by the State contemplates that all casu.al/ c
daily rated employees appointed on or before 2. 7.1974 shall be treated
as monthly rated establishment employees on a fixed pay of Rs. 780 per
month without any allowance from 1.1.1990. They would be eligible
for an annual increment at the rate of Rs.10 till their services are
regularised. On regularisation they shall be adjusted at the basic pay-
scale applicable to the lowest Group D cadre but would be entitled to D
all other benefits available to regular employees of their class. From
· amongst the casual and daily rated employees who have completed ten
. --(• . years of service as on 31.12.1989, 18,600 would be immediately
regularised on seniority-cum-suitability basis with effect from
1.1.1990. The State Government shall also regularise the services of
the remaining casual or daily rated workers who have already comp- E
leted ten years of service as on 31.12.1989 but could not be included in

- the limit of 18,600 in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-
suitability on or before 31st of December, 1990. The remaining casual
or daily rated employees will be absorbed and/or regularised in a
phased manner on seniority-cum-suitability basis on or before 31st of
December, 1997. F

This revised scheme filed by Mr. Hegde for the State has, how-
ever, not been accepted by Mr. Bhan dare and other counsel appearing
on the side of the petitioners in these petitions though on certain
aspects there is unanimity. Mr. Bhandare in his note by way of
response to the scheme of Mr. Hegde has emphasised upon th~ need of G
regularising all the employees who have completed ten years of service
with effect from 1.1.1990. He has further claimed that all the casual
and daily rated workmen who have completed five years of service as
on 31. 12.1989 should be put on monthly rated pay and tlie balance of
casual or daily rated workmen who are not covered by the above two
classes should be continued in that capacity and put on the monthly H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A rated establishments as and when they complete five years of service · y
and be regularised on completion of ten years of service from .the
initial employment as daily rated workmen. It has been contended that
a lot of thse casual and daily rated workmen have been retrenched in
violation of this Court's interim order dated 25.7 .1983 and there
should be a direction for their reinstatement with the benefit of no
B break in service. It has been further maintained that some of these .,..f-
employees belong to higher classifications like Groups B and C and,
therefore, they should be given the benefit of the corresponding scales
of pay on regularisation.

One of the further claims in the written note of Mr. Bhan dare is
that when the daily rated workmen are absorbed into monthly rated
C employment, they should be entitled to the minimum basic wage in the
corresponding scale of the group of the permanent employees. The
response points out that the casual and daily rated workmen to be
covered by the scheme should include casual employees and NMR
employees, progressive farmers, gram sahai and anganwadi workers.
D There is claim for weightage for past service, namely, for every unit of
five years exceeding ten years of service on the date of regularisation,
an additional increment should be admissible and added to the basic
salary and the advantages of the scheme extended to all the employees
under the State prior to formation of the Zila Parishads in the

--
Karnataka State and transfer of some of them to the Zila Parishads
E and Mandal Panchayats. Finally, it has been contended that no one
who is in employment on casual or daily rated basis on the date of our
judgment should be retrenched.

We can well realise the anxiety of the petitioners who have
waited too long to share the equal benefits mandated by Part IV of the y
Ji' Constitution in respect of their employment. At the same time, we
cannot overlook the contraints arising.out of or connected with availa-
bility of State resources. Keeping both in view and reposing our trust
in the relevant instrumentalities of the State that may be connected
with the implementation of the scheme to act with a sense of fairness,
anxiety to meet the demands of the human requirements and also
G anxious to fulfil the constitutional obligations of the State, the direc-
tions which we give below will give a final shape to the scheme thus: 'r
1. The casual/daily rated· employees appointed on or before
1. 7 .1984 shall be treated as monthly rated establishment
employees at the fixed pay of Rs. 780 per month without any
H allowances with effect from 1. 1.1990. They would be entitled to
/
P.W.D. EMP. ASSCN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA IMISRA;·J.]· 559

an annual increment of Rs.15 till their services are regularised.
A.
On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time
scale of pay applicable to the fowest Group D cadre under the
Government but would be entitled to all other benefits available
to regular government servants of the corresponding grade.

Those belonging to the B or C Groups upon regularisation B
shall similarly be placed at the minimum of the time scale of pay
applicable to their respective groups under government service,
and shall be entitled to all other benefits available to regular
government servants of these grades.

2. From amongst the casual and daily rated employees who have
completed ten years of service by 31.12;1989, 18,600 shall
c
immediately be regularised with effect from 1.1.1990 on the basis
of seniority-cum-suitability.

There shall be no examination but· physical infirmity shall
mainly be the test of suitability. O.

3. The remaining monthly rated employees covered by the
'
-·-1 paragraph 1 who have completed ten years of service as on 31st
December, 1989, shal1 be regularised before 31st December,
• 1990, in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitabi-
lity, suitability being understood in the same way as above. E'
r;,,
4. The balance of casual or daily rated employees who become
~ entitled to absorption on the basis of completing ten years of
service shall be absorbed/regularised in a phased manner on the
'( same principle as above on or before December 31, 1997.

5. At the point of regularisation, credit shall be given for every
unit of five years of service in excess of ten years and one addi-
tional increment in the time scale of pay shall be allowed by way
of weightage.

There was a direction that the claims on other heads would be con- G
sidered at the time of final disposal. We have come to the conclusion
that apart from these reliefs no other would be admissible.

:· We are alive to the position that the scheme which we have
finalised is ·not the ideal one but as we have already stated, it is the
obligation
-- --
of the Court to individualise justice
'
to suit a given situation
--· ·-
. 11-!
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A in a set of facts that are placed before it. Under the scheme of the~- '
Constitution the purse remains in the hands of the Executive. The
Legislature of the State controls the Consolidated Fund out of which
the expenditure to be incurred in giving effect to the scheme will have
to be met. The flow into the Consolidated Fund depends upon the
policy of taxation depending perhaps on the capacity of the payer.
B ~here fobre.' undulfy burd~ning the State for implementing the constitu- _,,f
1 1
Ilona o 1gation orthw1th would create problems which the State may
not be able to stand. We have, therefore, made our directions with
judicious restraint with the hope and trust that both parties would
appreciate and understand the situation. The instrumentality of the
State must realise that it is charged with a big trust. The money that
c flows into the Consolidated Fund and constitutes the resources of the
State comes from the people and the welfare expenditure that is meted
out goes from the same Fund back to the people. May be that in every )-.
situation the same tax-payer is not the beneficiary. That is an incident · .
of taxation and a necessary concomitant of living within a welfare
society.

Since this is not an adversarial litigation, we make no order as to
rom. ,
~
R.N.J. Petitions allowed .
•